Case 2:14-cv MMD-NJK Document 59 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 11
|
|
- Sheena Caldwell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 RA SOUTHEAST LAND COMPANY LLC, v. Plaintiff, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Counterclaimant, RA SOUTHEAST LAND COMPANY, LLC, Counterdefendant. Case No. :-cv-0-mmd-njk ORDER (Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. ; Plaintiff s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ECF No. ; Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Additional Brief ECF No. ; Defendant s Motion to Strike ECF No. ) I. SUMMARY Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment from the parties in this dispute over the terms of an insurance contract. Defendant and counterclaimant First American Title Insurance Company ( First American ) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No..) Plaintiff and counterdefendant RA Southeast Land Company, LLC ( RAS ) has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No..) The Court
2 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of has reviewed the parties respective responses (ECF Nos. 0, ) and replies (ECF Nos., ). RAS has also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief based on developments during discovery. (ECF No..) First American filed a response opposing the additional briefing and a Motion to Strike (ECF. No. ), and RAS filed a reply (ECF No. ). For the reasons discussed below, RAS s Motion to File a Supplemental Brief is granted, First American s Motion to Strike is denied, First American s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and RAS s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background. The Property In 0, RAS purchased a acre parcel of land in Las Vegas, on which it 0 planned to build a shopping center. (ECF No..) The property is situated among a number of parcels which have already been developed for retail and restaurant use. (Id..) RAS bought the parcel with the understanding that the purchase also conveyed certain rights ( Declarant Rights ) which would allow them to develop the land as they saw fit. (Id..). The Policy RAS purchased a title insurance policy from First American in connection with its purchase of the land. The policy provides $. million in coverage against loss or damage sustained by RAS for a number of reasons, including a defect in title or unmarketable title. (ECF No. - at,.) The policy also includes an endorsement which specifically deals with the Declarant Rights. The endorsement provides, in relevant part, that First American insures RAS against loss or damage resulting from the failure of the Declarant Rights. / / / / / /
3 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0. Litigation History RAS acquired the property and Declarant Rights from a bank, which itself had acquired them through foreclosure on a defaulting borrower. In 00, the original owner of both the property and the Declarant Rights, Charleston Associates LLC ( Charleston ), pledged the land as collateral for a loan from City National Bank ( CNB ). (ECF No..) Charleston defaulted on the loan and in 00, First American conducted the trustee s sale. (Id. -.) RAS then purchased the property from CNB. (Id..) Charleston, which had entered bankruptcy proceedings, sent RAS a letter shortly after RAS closed on the property indicating that Charleston believed it still owned the Declarant Rights. (Id.,.) First American began defending and indemnifying RAS in bankruptcy court, pursuant to the policy. (ECF No. at.) The bankruptcy court declared Charleston retained the Declarant Rights due to an automatic bankruptcy stay. (Id..) That decision was reversed by this Court. (Id..) After the parties filed the pending cross motions for summary judgment, this Court s decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. See Charleston Associates, LLC v. City Nat. Bank, F. App'x, (th Cir. 0). First American continued to provide RAS its legal defense throughout the proceedings. B. Procedural Background On September, 0, RAS filed suit in this Court against First American, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Act (NRS A.). RAS seeks declaratory relief, damages, attorneys fees, interest and costs. (ECF No..) First American, in turn, filed counterclaims seeking declaratory relief and rescission. (ECF No. at.) On July 0, 0, First American filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a ruling on all of RAS s claims. (ECF No..) On September, 0 RAS filed its own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its declaratory relief claim. (ECF No..)
4 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RAS seeks leave to file a supplemental brief based on evidence produced during discovery and after both parties filed their respective summary judgment briefs. (ECF No..) First American opposes RAS s motion and asks that RAS s proposed supplemental brief be stricken. (ECF No..) First American largely argues the merits of the underlying brief, rather than the propriety of allowing RAS to file it. LR -(g) requires parties to acquire leave of court before filing supplemental briefs. A court may grant such a request for good cause. RAS has identified deposition testimony from a 0(b)() witness which it believes will aid the Court in resolving the contractual dispute in the cross motions for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, the Court grants RAS s motion and considers its attached brief in evaluating the cross motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. at -.) The Court will also consider the arguments presented in First American s response (ECF No. ) and RAS s reply (ECF No. ) in evaluating the new evidence and ruling on the cross motions for summary judgment. IV. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Legal Standard The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is 0 no dispute as to the facts before the court. Nw. Motorcycle Ass n v. U.S. Dep t of Agric., F.d, (th Cir. ). Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, U.S., (). An issue is genuine if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., - (). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary judgment is not appropriate. See id. at 0-. The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine
5 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 issue of material fact is enough to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties differing versions of the truth at trial. Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., F.d, 0 (th Cir. ) (quoting First Nat l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., U.S., - ()). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., F.d 0, (th Cir. ). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., F.d 0, (th Cir. ). In order to carry its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party s claim or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., F.d, (th Cir. 000). Once the moving party satisfies Rule s requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, U.S. at. The nonmoving party may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists, Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. ), and must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Orr v. Bank of Am., F.d, (th Cir. 00) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., U.S., ()). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff s position will be insufficient. Anderson, U.S. at. Further, when parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, [e]ach motion must be considered on its own merits. Fair Hous. Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, F.d, (th Cir. 00) (quoting William W. Schwarzer, et al., The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, F.R.D., (Feb. ) (citations omitted). In fulfilling its duty to review each
6 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 cross-motion separately, the court must review the evidence submitted in support of each cross-motion. Id. B. Analysis First American seeks summary judgment on all claims in RAS s complaint. RAS seeks summary judgment only on its request for declaratory relief. The question this Court must resolve is whether, under the applicable Nevada law, First American satisfied its obligations by providing defense and ultimately prevailing in litigation over RAS s ownership of the Declarant Rights, or whether First American is also required to pay for any damages and loss RAS incurred while the litigation took place. The parties dispute the import of an insurance policy. Under Nevada law, [a]n insurance policy is a contract that must be enforced according to its terms to accomplish the intent of the parties. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Neal, P.d, (Nev. 00). When the facts are not in dispute, contract interpretation is a question of law. Grand Hotel Gift Shop v. Granite State Ins. Co., P.d, 0 (Nev. ). The language of the insurance policy must be viewed from the perspective of one not trained in law, and the court must give plain and ordinary meaning to the terms. Farmers Ins. Exch., P.d at (internal quotation marks omitted). Unambiguous provisions will not be rewritten; however, ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured. Id. (footnote omitted); see also Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., P.d 0, (Nev. 00) ( In the insurance context, we broadly interpret clauses providing coverage, to afford the insured the greatest possible coverage; correspondingly, clauses excluding coverage are interpreted narrowly against the insurer. ) (internal quotation marks omitted); Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. Wright, F.Supp.d, (D.Nev.00) (noting that a Nevada court will not increase an obligation to the insured where such As First American correctly notes in its reply, RAS s opposition does not contain any argument opposing First American s request for summary judgment on RAS s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or violation of the unfair claims settlement act. (ECF No. at.) Therefore, the Court will grant summary judgment on these claims. See LR -(d).
7 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 was intentionally and unambiguously limited by the parties ). RAS s argument is based on the notion that the endorsement either ) on its face promises to cover losses from impairment to the Declarant Rights during litigation; ) is ambiguous and conflicts with the policy, and therefore must be interpreted against First American according to principals of insurance contract interpretation; or ) RAS reasonably expected to be covered for losses while ownership of the Declarant Rights was being litigated. (ECF No. at.) First American, in turn, argues that the terms of the agreement are unambiguous and it fulfilled its obligation to RAS by successfully defending RAS s ownership of the Declarant Rights. (ECF No. at -.). The Agreement The relevant portions of the contract at issue consist of a standardized policy ( the Policy ); a schedule describing the specific property, parties, amount of insurance and premiums ( Schedule A ); and an endorsement which extends coverage to the Declarant Rights ( the Endorsement ). The Policy outlines the general agreement. It defines terms, explains the scope, lists exceptions, and details the way claims will be calculated and paid. Of particular importance to this case, subsection of the Policy states: (a) If the Company establishes the Title, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cures the lack of a right of access to or from the Land, or cures the claim of Unmarketable Title, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals, it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused to the Insured. (b) In the event of any litigation, including litigation by the Company or with the Company s consent, the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals, adverse to the Title, as insured. (ECF No. - at.) / / / / / /
8 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Schedule A fills in some specific elements missing from the Policy. It sets the amount of insurance at $. million, sets the premium at $,, and describes the specific land and title that are described in the Policy as Title. (Id. at -.) The Endorsement is an addition to the standard policy for which RAS paid an additional premium. (ECF No..) It extends coverage to include not only the Title listed in the Policy and identified in Schedule A, but also the Declarant Rights associated with the property. Mimicking language from the Policy, the Endorsement insures [RAS] against loss or damage actually sustained by [RAS] by reason of [t]he failure of [the Declarant Rights]. (ECF No. - at.) The Endorsement goes on to state that [i]mpairment, loss or failure of title to the Declarant Rights transferred to [RAS] is expressly excluded from coverage hereof if resulting from, three listed scenarios, which are inapplicable here. (Id.) The Endorsement concludes by stating that it does not modify any of the terms and provisions of the policy, and is subject to all of the terms and provision of the policy, but to the extent it is inconsistent with the policy, the Endorsement controls. (Id.). What the Endorsement Covers The parties agree that the Endorsement extends the coverage under the Policy to include the failure of the Declarant Rights to have been transferred, but RAS believes that it expands coverage even further. According to RAS, the language in the Endorsement providing that [i]mpairment, loss or failure of title to the Declarant Rights transferred to the Insured is expressly excluded from coverage hereof if resulting from [three listed reasons], means that by negative implication, impairment of the rights not caused by one of the enumerated exceptions must be covered. Therefore, argues RAS, First American is responsible for any impairment caused by the extensive litigation over ownership of the Declarant Rights. (ECF No. 0 at -.) RAS additionally argues that subsection, which states that First American fully performs its obligations if it cures any defects in title through litigation, does not apply to the Declarant Rights. (ECF No. 0 at.) This is because, according to RAS,
9 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 subsection of the Policy refers to Title (with a capital T) while the Endorsement refers to title (with a lower case t). Neither argument is convincing. First, the fact that the Endorsement covers loss from impairment does not mean that subsection of the Policy is inapplicable. RAS would have the Court read the word impairment to, by negative inference, rewrite the express method by which First American provides coverage and render subsection either meaningless or contradictory. This is a creative but implausible reading. Subsection describes how First American s coverage works. The subsection clearly indicates that in the event that First American removes the alleged defect through litigation, it is not responsible for any loss or damage caused to the insured. (ECF No. - at.) In the Endorsement, subsection applies to coverage First American provides due to impairment, loss or failure of title to the Declarant Rights the same way it applies in the Policy to any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the Title. In other words, impairment of the Declarant Rights may trigger litigation on RAS s behalf, but First American by the express terms of the Policy is not responsible for further impairment caused by litigation to cure the original impairment. Second, the differentiated use of title and Title does not mean that subsection of the Policy is inapplicable. If it did, the Endorsement would be left largely meaningless. It is true that when used in the Policy Title refers to a specific, defined estate or interest. (ECF No. - at.) It is also true that First American refers to both Title and title in the Policy to refer to slightly different things. (Id. at.) But it does not follow that the use of the term title in the Endorsement must be understood to jettison large portions of the Policy. If it did, much of the Policy, including many material provisions, would be inapplicable to the Endorsement. The Endorsement itself is short. It does not contain, for example, any provision describing its own duration. Nor does it contain a provision describing how the extent of liability will be determined. This is because it expressly relies on the Policy, where these factors and many others are set out. The provisions in the Policy regarding the duration of the agreement and the means
10 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 for determining liability, for example, specifically refer to Title. (See ECF No. - at (subsection of the Policy) and (subsection of the Policy)). If the Court were to adopt RAS s proposed interpretation, the Endorsement would be littered with gaps. The only plausible understanding of the Endorsement is that it is subject to subsection of the Policy. This understanding is further supported by clear language in the Endorsement indicating that it is issued as part of the policy and subject to all of the terms and provisions of the policy. (Id. at.). Ambiguity For the reasons above, the Court finds that the language of the Endorsement and the Policy are unambiguous. Therefore, RAS cannot rely on the reasonable expectations doctrine. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Young, P.d, n. (Nev. ) ( [a]bsent the finding of an ambiguity in the policy, the reasonable expectations doctrine does not help an insured. ). Additionally, the parol evidence obtained by RAS and submitted with leave of the Court is inapposite. Ringle v. Bruton, P.d, (Nev. 00) ( The parol evidence rule does not permit the admission of evidence that would change the contract terms when the terms of a written agreement are clear, definite, and unambiguous. ). V. CONCLUSION The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant discussion because they do not affect the outcome of the parties motions. It is therefore ordered that RAS s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief (ECF No. ) is granted. It is further ordered that First American s Motion to Strike (ECF No. ) is denied. It is further ordered that RAS s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. ) is denied. / / /
11 Case :-cv-0-mmd-njk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of It is further ordered that First American s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. ) is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of First American on the claims alleged in Plaintiff RAS s Complaint in accordance with this Order. DATED THIS st day of September 0. MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 0
Case 2:16-cv JCM-CWH Document 53 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 7. Plaintiff(s),
Case :-cv-0-jcm-cwh Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 RUSSELL PATTON, v. Plaintiff(s), FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC, Defendant(s). Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
Alps Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Turkaly et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : ORDER
Case 115-cv-04130-RWS Document 55 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION PRINCIPLE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. IRONSHORE
More informationCase 1:05-cv AA Document 21 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-02305-AA Document 21 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION CAROL NEGRON, EXECUTRIX, et al., CASE NO. 1:05CV2305 Plaintiffs, vs.
More informationCase 1:15-cv SMJ ECF No. 54 filed 11/21/17 PageID.858 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cv-0-smj ECF No. filed // PageID. Page of 0 0 TREE TOP INC. v. STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY CO., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Plaintiff, Defendant. FILED IN THE U.S.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Trustees of the Ohio Bricklayers Health & Welfare Fund et al v. VIP Restoration, Inc. et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Trustees of Ohio Bricklayers
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-cv MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ROSSCO HOLDINGS, INC. Plaintiff, vs. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-cv-04047 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationCase 1:13-cv ABJ Document 29 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-00109-ABJ Document 29 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) VALIDUS REINSURANCE, LTD., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0109 (ABJ)
More informationCase 1:05-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00408-RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NAYDA LOPEZ and BENJAMIN LOPEZ, Case No. 1:05-CV-408 Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No Honorable Patrick J. Duggan FIRST BANK OF DELAWARE,
Case 2:10-cv-11345-PJD-MJH Document 12 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 7 ANTHONY O. WILSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Case No. 10-11345 Honorable
More informationCase 3:14-cv WWE Document 96 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-00259-WWE Document 96 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JAMES THOMPSON, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : v. : 3:14-CV-00259-WWE : NATIONAL UNION FIRE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER
Embroidme.Com, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Doc. 111 EMBROIDME.COM, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 12-81250-CIV-MARRA v s. Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:13-cv-01583-CDP Doc. #: 35 Filed: 05/16/14 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 312 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DONNA J. MAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No.
More informationCase 3:13-cv SI Document 26 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 11 Page ID#: 119 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:13-cv-01565-SI Document 26 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 11 Page ID#: 119 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JANET M. BENNETT, PH.D., Plaintiff, Case No. 3:13-cv-01565-SI
More informationCase 3:13-cv CRS-DW Document 167 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 4892
Case 3:13-cv-01047-CRS-DW Document 167 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 4892 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU PLAINTIFF v.
More information2:16-cv DCN Date Filed 10/18/17 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 12
2:16-cv-03174-DCN Date Filed 10/18/17 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION SHAWN MOULTRIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 2:16-cv-03174-DCN
More informationRyan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53. Case 1:17-cv TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15
Ryan et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al Doc. 53 Case 1:17-cv-00817-TWT Document 53 Filed 07/16/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :-cv-0-sc Document Filed /0/ Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Kavanaugh Supply, LLC et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 292 Filed: 05/09/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:5667
Case: 1:12-cv-01624 Document #: 292 Filed: 05/09/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:5667 NACOLA MAGEE and JAMES PETERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
More informationCase 2:15-cv BJR Document 15 Filed 08/09/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-bjr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LARRY ANDREWS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CV- BJR ) v. ) ) ORDER GRANTING
More informationLove v. Eaton Corp. Disability Plan for U.S. Emple.
No Shepard s Signal As of: July 10, 2018 10:53 AM Z Love v. Eaton Corp. Disability Plan for U.S. Emple. United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division December
More informationCase 2:18-cv RMP ECF No. 27 filed 10/23/18 PageID.273 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.
Case :-cv-00-rmp ECF No. filed // PageID. Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Oct, SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-30849 Document: 00514799581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED January 17, 2019 NICOLE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Wells v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Noah Wells d/b/a Centerpoint Chimney v. Civil No. 17-cv-669-JD Opinion No. 2018 DNH
More informationCase 1:07-cv LG-JMR Document 26 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-01000-LG-JMR Document 26 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THE CHILDREN S IMAGINATION STATION, REBECCA
More informationCase 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:16-cv-00040-JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS v. Plaintiff, Case
More informationDavid Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-24-2013 David Hatchigian v. International Brotherhood of E Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationlaw are made pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure IN RE: MICHAEL A. SCOTT and PATRICIA J. SCOTT, Debtors.
IN RE: MICHAEL A. SCOTT and PATRICIA J. SCOTT, Debtors. PATRICIA J. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant. Case No. 09-11123-M Adv. No. 14-01040-M UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
More informationCase 3:12-cv SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-00999-SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CITY OF MARION, ILL., Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SPECIALTY
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:442
Case: 1:18-cv-00084 Document #: 53 Filed: 12/20/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:442 JACOB TRISCHLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-00084
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PERMA-PIPE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 13 C 2898 ) vs. ) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán ) LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE ) CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-0-gms Document Filed 0/0/ Page of WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equity Income Partners LP, an Arizona Limited Partnership; Galileo Capital Partners Limited,
More informationCase 2:06-cv TFM Document 42 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:06-cv-00279-TFM Document 42 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JACK M. HOROVITZ, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES (INTERNAL
More informationF I L E D March 9, 2012
Case: 11-30375 Document: 00511783316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 9, 2012 Lyle
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. ServerLogic Corporation et al Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
More informationCase 3:12-cv JJB-RLB Document /20/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 3:12-cv-00257-JJB-RLB Document 394 11/20/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THE SHAW GROUP INC. SHAW PROCESS FABRICATORS INC. VERSUS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
More informationCamico Mutual Insurance Co v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-10-2014 Camico Mutual Insurance Co v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392
Case: 1:13-cv-03094 Document #: 59 Filed: 05/27/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:392 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ELENA FRIDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 13 C 03094
More informationv No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY, v No LC No NF INSURANCE COMPANY,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 332448 Wayne Circuit Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session STEVEN ANDERSON v. ROY W. HENDRIX, JR. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-07-1317 Kenny W. Armstrong, Chancellor
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS F. QUEBE and LINDA G. QUEBE, Defendants.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS F. QUEBE and LINDA G. QUEBE, Defendants. Case Information: Code Sec(s): Court Name: Docket No.: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mathena v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON et al Doc. 25 CHRISTINE MATHENA, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Civil Case No. 16-11195 Honorable Linda
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ALI AHMAD BAKRI, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 21, 2016 v No. 326109 Wayne Circuit Court SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, also LC No. 13-006364-NI known as HARTFORD
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1180 ALL RISKS, LTD, a Maryland corporation; HCC SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS, INC., a Massachusetts corporation; UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED January 27, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 242967 Oakland Circuit Court EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 6:13-cv-01591-GAP-GJK Document 92 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3137 CATHERINE S. CADLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION v. Case No: 6:13-cv-1591-Orl-31GJK
More informationCase 1:13-cv BB Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:13-cv-22838-BB Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 1 of 10 BLACK KNIGHT PROTECTION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiff, LANDMARK AMERICAN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ORDER
THOMAS C. SHELTON and MARA G. SHELTON, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. Case No. 8:12-cv-2064-T-30AEP LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
More informationJANUARY 25, 2012 NO CA-0820 BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT
BASELINE CONSTRUCTION & RESTORATION OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C. VERSUS FAVROT REALTY PARTNERSHIP D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CHATEAUX DIJON LAND, L.L.C., D/B/A CHATEAUX DIJON APARTMENTS, CDJ APARTMENTS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session TIMOTHY J. MIELE and wife, LINDA S. MIELE, Individually, and d/b/a MIELE HOMES v. ZURICH U.S. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, SHORENSTEIN REALTY SERVICES, LP; SHORENSTEIN MANAGEMENT,
More informationCase 1:10-cv REB-CBS Document 60 Filed 01/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24
Case 1:10-cv-03126-REB-CBS Document 60 Filed 01/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24 Civil Case No. 10-cv-03126-REB-CBS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn
More informationOsborne Construction Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Osborne Construction Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company Doc. 1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 1 OSBORNE CONSTRUCTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION R S U I INDEMNITY COMPANY * CIVIL ACTION NO
R S U I Indemnity Co v. Louisiana Rural Parish Insurance Cooperative et al Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION R S U I INDEMNITY COMPANY * CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2009 SHELBY COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationCase3:12-cv WHO Document62 Filed05/08/14 Page1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:-cv-0-WHO Document Filed0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NAMRATA C. PATEL, DDS, v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. (FILED: August 1, 2016
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, SC. (Transferred to Kent, SC.) SUPERIOR COURT (FILED: August 1, 2016 GILBERT J. MENDOZA, : and LISA M. MENDOZA : : : v. : C.A. No. PC-2011-2547
More informationCase 2:17-cv SDW-CLW Document 23 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1841 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY OPINION
Case 2:17-cv-05470-SDW-CLW Document 23 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1841 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KARIM ARZADI, JOWORISAK & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Reinicke Athens Inc. v. National Trust Insurance Company Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION REINICKE ATHENS INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
Harleysville Worchester Insurance Company v. Diamondhead Property Owners Association, Inc. et al Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION HARLEYSVILLE
More information2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 1 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. SECURE ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
More informationUnited States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company v. Visionaid Inc. Doc. 68 United States District Court District of Massachusetts MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. VISIONAID, INC., Defendant. Civil
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Precision Standard, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54027 ) Under Contract No. F41608-95-C-1176 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Nancy M. Camardo, Esq. Law Office
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v No. 237926 Wayne Circuit Court AMERICAN COMMUNITY MUTUAL LC No.
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A16-0660 K & R Landholdings, LLC, d/b/a High Banks Resort, Appellant, vs. Auto-Owners Insurance, Respondent. Filed February 12, 2018 Reversed and remanded Schellhas,
More informationCase 0:04-cv JNE-RLE Document 30 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case 0:04-cv-03800-JNE-RLE Document 30 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 7 Marc Jordan, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA v. Civ. No. 04-3800 (JNE/RLE) ORDER United States of America,
More informationCase: , 01/04/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-56663, 01/04/2019, ID: 11141257, DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 4 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
More informationAnderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2013-2014 Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, katelyn.hepburn@umontana.edu
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Tyrone Shanks ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. F P-0005 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Tyrone Shanks ) ASBCA No. 54538 ) Under Contract No. F04666-03-P-0005 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Mr. Tyrone
More informationCase 9:16-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-80987-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 THE MARBELLA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, and NORMAN SLOANE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
Deer Oaks Office Park Owners Association v. State Farm Lloyds Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEER OAKS OFFICE PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: Gendenna Loretta Comps, Case No. 05-45305 Debtor. Chapter 7 Hon. Marci B. McIvor / K. Jin Lim, Trustee, v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv GRJ.
James Brannan v. Geico Indemnity Company, et al Doc. 1107526182 Case: 13-15213 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-15213
More informationTHE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY & SUBS. v. U.S., Cite as 106 AFTR 2d (733 F. Supp. 2d 857), Code Sec(s) 41, (DC OH), 06/25/2010
American Federal Tax Reports THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY & SUBS. v. U.S., Cite as 106 AFTR 2d 2010-5433 (733 F. Supp. 2d 857), Code Sec(s) 41, (DC OH), 06/25/2010 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 15-CV-837 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS MAVROFF, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-CV-837 KOHN LAW FIRM S.C. and DAVID A. AMBROSH, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
More informationCase 2:09-cv RK Document 55 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-06055-RK Document 55 Filed 04/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE : CIVIL ACTION COMPANY, : : Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No CV-3-LAC-MD
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-15396 D. C. Docket No. 05-00401-CV-3-LAC-MD FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 JOHN LEY
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) JJM Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos and ) Under Contract No. N C-0534 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) JJM Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 51152 and 52159 ) Under Contract No. N62269-93-C-0534 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
2:15-cv-11394-MFL-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 191 TIFFANY ALLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11394 Hon. Matthew
More informationCase 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-00280-DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Kang Sik Park, M.D. v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER First American Title Insurance
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SEVER
ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA VINCENT R. ZINNO v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-792
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION May 16, 2017 9:15 a.m. v No. 331612 Berrien Circuit Court GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF LC No. 14-000258-NF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DEBBIE ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15CV193 RWS CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, et al., Defendants, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before
More informationCase 3:10-cv JWS Document 62 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 9
Case :0-cv-0-JWS Document Filed 0// Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, :0-cv-0 JWS vs. ORDER AND OPINION JOSEPH LIPARI, et al., [Re: Motions
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0138n.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT NETJETS INC.; COLUMBIA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, INTELLIJET GROUP, LLC, dba
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM
GROSSMAN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JACK GROSSMAN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. CASE NO: 8:15-cv-126-T-30EAJ ORDER
Case 8:15-cv-00126-JSM-EAJ Document 57 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID 526 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim
More informationCase 2:15-cv ER Document 19 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-06619-ER Document 19 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY : COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 15-6619
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 02, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2672 Lower Tribunal No. 12-15813 Dev D. Dabas and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Turner et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 DAMON G. TURNER and KRISTINE A. TURNER, v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
More informationCase 3:18-cv RJB Document 34 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Case :-cv-00-rjb Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation doing business in Washington, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT December 15, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court AVALON CARE CENTER-FEDERAL WAY, LLC, v. Plaintiff,
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Opinion filed August 1, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00263-CV RON POUNDS, Appellant V. LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 215th District
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STERLING BANK & TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2011 v No. 299136 Oakland Circuit Court MARK A. CANVASSER, LC No. 2010-107906-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 3:10-cv Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 1 of 2 Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 05/24/12 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:10-cv-00458 Document 32 Filed in TXSD on 04/18/12 Page 1
More informationCase 2:13-cv APG-VCF Document 65 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-0-apg-vcf Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 LINDA SLIWA, v. Plaintiff, LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY as Claims Administrator for GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE FOR EMPLOYEES OF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS POLARIS HOME FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 295069 Kent Circuit Court AMERA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LC No. 08-009667-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More information